Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US employers spend more than $1.5B a year to fight labor unions, report finds

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 230 posts

Re: US employers spend more than $1.5B a year to fight labor unions, report finds

#171

Post by tristor »

AshleyGrant wrote: post #141
tristor wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why do we constantly denigrate these "free loaders" and exalt the capitalists who quite literally free load off of our labor extracting untold billions and trillions of dollars off the backs of average folks like you and me while we get relative pennies? We should do both, but when I agree to take a job at a given pay, I show up every single day capable, ready, and willing to work for the wage I agreed to. When oth…

And I personally think that billionaires extracting untold wealth from those of us doing the actual work is a far greater societal problem than some normal folks who are lazy but are making 0.0001% of what the capitalist class is extracting from my efforts. > The camp that doesn't see an issue with union free riders not pulling their weight are generally folks who only see accountability collectively, rather than per…

> And I personally think that billionaires extracting untold wealth from those of us doing the actual work is a far greater societal problem than some normal folks who are lazy

There can be two problems (or more). We can care about two things at once (or more). The fact that we all hate bad coworkers who make our lives harder and fail to pull their wait doesn't mean we can't also hate billionaires. I'm just explaining why the former gets more heat than the latter. It's human nature to feel more intensity of a problem the closer it is to you, and we are so far removed from billionaires that while we all can and should be taking actions to steer society in a better direction, it does not have the tangible immediacy of having better quality coworkers.

Re: US employers spend more than $1.5B a year to fight labor unions, report finds

#172

Post by anon291 »

oblio wrote: post #50
chii wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

equality of outcome is unnecessary, only equality of opportunity is required.

So if the apples are in a 3.5m high tree and you're 2m tall and I'm 1.5m tall, it's fair if we both get 1m ladders?

Yes? Maybe the 1.5 m tall guy should find another line of work where he has a natural advantage that could be turned into profit. People are not the same. The market is the best way to allocate resources fairly to people of different ability

Re: US employers spend more than $1.5B a year to fight labor unions, report finds

#173

Post by anon291 »

yifanl wrote: post #72
chii wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why isnt it fair? Someone taller has a better chance at becoming a pro basketball player. Shorter people are not given more leeway. But both tall and short people have the chance to try out (at least on paper).

Because the equivalence between being signed for the NBA and having apples to eat is nonsensical. We accept some things being unfair, not everything being unfair.

Strawman.... No one is dying for lack of apples in America

Re: US employers spend more than $1.5B a year to fight labor unions, report finds

#174

Post by jltsiren »

Veserv wrote: post #131
Jcampuzano2 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is usually one of the arguments made against unions, and I find it an interesting phenomenon. Philosophically unions benefit the majority and are probably a net good on a social construct level. But they are likely a net loss to the top percentage of workers who are extremely motivated to move up and probably hurt innovation overall. Unions exist to benefit the median and bring up the floor, but it stifles compe…

A key problem in the US is that in a unionized job you are legally required to be represented by the union. Union membership is non-voluntary. If you think you are part of that top percentage or even if you think that the union is not representing your interests, tough luck. It is illegal to quit or reorganize like-minded individuals to form your own that better represents you. To reform the union you need to get 50%…

Voluntary unions have a free rider problem. You may choose to join the union because you believe it's the right thing to do, but the benefits are rarely worth the dues. Non-members also benefit from collective bargaining, but they have a bit more money to spend.

Legal representation is probably the main exception. Other benefits you could just pay on your own, but unions are the easiest way to get access to lawyers specialized in labor issues, and they will often represent you for free.

The bigger difference between American and European unions is that Europe tends to treat union membership as sensitive personal information. Your employer has no legitimate reason to know whether you are a union member, and it's not allowed to ask. The union is also generally not allowed to tell its members which of their colleagues are members. Many of the issues surrounding American unions just disappear when union membership has no impact on your daily job.

Re: US employers spend more than $1.5B a year to fight labor unions, report finds

#175

Post by maerF0x0 »

baron816 wrote: post #151
maerF0x0 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIK The USA is one of the most anti-union non-authoritarian countries for a very long time. In other countries people receive a lot more support and protections for the right to organize

Unions often exert more power at the state and local level. In certain states, they can consistently wield a lot of power. Unions in the US tend to be much more aggressive than they are in other places, which has in part led to their decline. Americans historically have tended to hate unions at the times when they’re powerful, and love them at times when they’re weak. In other words, people like the idea of unions in…

Hating something in practice doesn't always mean it's bad for you. See veggies and exercise as an example.

Re: US employers spend more than $1.5B a year to fight labor unions, report finds

#177

Post by oblio »

anon291 wrote: post #172
oblio wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if the apples are in a 3.5m high tree and you're 2m tall and I'm 1.5m tall, it's fair if we both get 1m ladders?

Yes? Maybe the 1.5 m tall guy should find another line of work where he has a natural advantage that could be turned into profit. People are not the same. The market is the best way to allocate resources fairly to people of different ability

Unfettered markets are how we get burning rivers.

I know we're on the bastion of libertarianism, but even though I work in tech, I don't feel that tech (hardware/software) is tackling the truly big problems of humanity, just the ones that bring the most money. We should at least acknowledge that and mitigate it.

Re: US employers spend more than $1.5B a year to fight labor unions, report finds

#178

Post by briandw »

sometimelurker wrote: post #168
briandw wrote: post #8

This is an adversarial process. Unions exist to fight employers. Unions spend about 23 billion a year in total. Only spending 1.5B to defend against 23B looks like a bargain.

> 23 billion source pls

https://candid.org/blogs/key-facts-figures-and-trends-among-...

Re: US employers spend more than $1.5B a year to fight labor unions, report finds

#179

Post by Veserv »

jltsiren wrote: post #174
Veserv wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A key problem in the US is that in a unionized job you are legally required to be represented by the union. Union membership is non-voluntary. If you think you are part of that top percentage or even if you think that the union is not representing your interests, tough luck. It is illegal to quit or reorganize like-minded individuals to form your own that better represents you. To reform the union you need to get 50%…

Voluntary unions have a free rider problem. You may choose to join the union because you believe it's the right thing to do, but the benefits are rarely worth the dues. Non-members also benefit from collective bargaining, but they have a bit more money to spend. Legal representation is probably the main exception. Other benefits you could just pay on your own, but unions are the easiest way to get access to lawyers s…

Voluntary unions do not have a free rider problem. That is only the case if you legally require collective bargaining to apply to non-union members (as is the case in the US).

For instance, in Germany [1] collective bargaining agreements are agreements between employers and unions, and are only required to be applied to union members. Companys may voluntarily choose to extend those same benefits to non-union members. Despite the fact that unions are voluntary in Germany, they still have significant union membership as a whole and German unions are frequently held up as a good example of the benefits of unions to both workers and society which is evidence against the claim that it is necessary to legally enforce union membership.

[1] https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.86564...

Re: US employers spend more than $1.5B a year to fight labor unions, report finds

#180

Post by HDThoreaun »

Muromec wrote: post #89
aliasxneo wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for sharing. Very interesting to hear someone else with a similar experience. > Unions devolving to simply protect the lowest common denominator is a problem. I've always wondered if this is because the ones most incentivized to stay are the ones that eventually make it into upper leadership. It always seemed to me like the decisions being made at that level were intended to protect those same people. For exam…

Honest question -- what should happen to poor performing people? They should have less money, less food, be homeless or what? Should they be more stressed and as a result somehow perform better? On one hand I don't like to deal with results of bad craftsmanship, on the other hand I don't desire of the suffering of others. The thing is real, but so are the people. Not a snark or a gotcha, I'm a union member and recogn…

> what should happen to poor performing people?

In my experience most poor performers just arent putting the effort in. They should be made to understand that low effort compared to peers will lead to less money, yes. If theyre genuinely unable to perform the duties they should do something else/

Post reply on HN